There are different reasons people use Unix-like operating systems, including configurable, availability free of charge, powerful command line interface an many more. Some people are motivated by the moral issue: they reject non-free software. Specifically for such users Free Software Foundation developed Guidelines for Free System Distributions and created the list of absolutely free ("as in freedom") distributions. In this article we are going to look at the most recent entry on the list - Parabola GNU/Linux.

For me it is akin to some priest shouting at me in a square about how I am going to hell because I don't believe in his religion. Yes you in my mind you have every right to do it, but I also have every right to get pissed off about it.

No, I've never heard any argument for why it should be illegal to sell software. That isn't anywhere on the FSF website, and characterizes a common misconception amongst people about libre-free software.

It sort of is like your priest example, as in, its based on a complete misunderstanding of reality. Priests (choose any religion that has a caste that calls themselves priest) don't do that, and never really have. Now, there are crazy religious zealots that do that, maybe even a few that would call themselves ministers, but not priests. You're blaming the wrong people. Just as the original poster didn't understand free-libre software.

The point is, you should at least *try* to understand things *before* getting pissed off about it. If for no other reason to be able to cary on an intelligent conversation and/or rant at the correct people.

No, I've never heard any argument for why it should be illegal to sell software. That isn't anywhere on the FSF website, and characterizes a common misconception amongst people about libre-free software.

They say that they believe all software should be GPL or compatible.

If you are an independant developer creating bespoke software you are likely to have a contract with a third party anyway.

If the software isn't bespoke, you and you release it as GPL, you won't make anymoney from selling it ... because someone else will just take the source and redistribute it. You might be able to make money from support, but it has to be a pretty large program, otherwise another entity will easy just undercut you on support.

It is about whether they are arguing against selling software, it is that they are campaigning that software must be released with this license otherwise you are infringing on the user's rights, however it isn't easily possible to make money. Even Stallman admits this on the FSF.org

“Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now”

It sort of is like your priest example, as in, its based on a complete misunderstanding of reality. Priests (choose any religion that has a caste that calls themselves priest) don't do that, and never really have. Now, there are crazy religious zealots that do that, maybe even a few that would call themselves ministers, but not priests. You're blaming the wrong people. Just as the original poster didn't understand free-libre software.

Except the FSF is run by an extremist.

The point is, you should at least *try* to understand things *before* getting pissed off about it. If for no other reason to be able to cary on an intelligent conversation and/or rant at the correct people.

He does, you are nitpicking about the details. He was close enough as much as it matters. It constantly irritates me, that anyone that supports open source will say "well nobody said that exactly".

And tbh if the differences are this easily misunderstood by people in the profession ... how is anyone outside of the software engineering going to understand the nuances?

Just go to ubuntu Forums, you have lots of new Linux users arguing about freedomz to see the source code ... many of them have never written a line of code.